The difficulty with most of these sites is not that they are criticizing Orthodox Christianity as it is but basing their critiques on misconceptions of Orthodox doctrine and practice. Sometimes elements of Orthodox teaching can be recognized, but the way they are put together is often quite bizarre. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about how heretics took elements of the faith and rearranged them, so that what once was a mosaic of a king becomes an image of a dog (or something else).

The difficulty with most of these sites is not that they are criticizing Orthodox Christianity as it is but basing their critiques on misconceptions of Orthodox doctrine and practice. Sometimes elements of Orthodox teaching can be recognized, but the way they are put together is often quite bizarre. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about how heretics took elements of the faith and rearranged them, so that what once was a mosaic of a king becomes an image of a dog (or something else).

−

The exception to this is Daniel Clendenin, who obviously has done his research. He has a much better understanding of Orthodoxy than the other writers linked here. His basic conclusion though is that "I'm not Orthodox because I hold to Protestant Reformation Distinctives" -- at least that's honest.

+

One significant exception is Daniel Clendenin, whom many Orthodox Christians respect for being much more thorough in his research. In that, he is relatively unique among modern critics of Orthodoxy.

+

His ultimate reason for rejecting Orthodoxy is spelled out in terms of his commitment to Protestant distinctives, a viewpoint which draws the lines clearly, rather than proceeding from the position that we all share the same basic assumptions and that one's interlocutor is drawing dishonest conclusions based on them.

Revision as of 05:20, January 18, 2005

Contents

Protestant Polemics

The difficulty with most of these sites is not that they are criticizing Orthodox Christianity as it is but basing their critiques on misconceptions of Orthodox doctrine and practice. Sometimes elements of Orthodox teaching can be recognized, but the way they are put together is often quite bizarre. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about how heretics took elements of the faith and rearranged them, so that what once was a mosaic of a king becomes an image of a dog (or something else).

One significant exception is Daniel Clendenin, whom many Orthodox Christians respect for being much more thorough in his research. In that, he is relatively unique among modern critics of Orthodoxy.
His ultimate reason for rejecting Orthodoxy is spelled out in terms of his commitment to Protestant distinctives, a viewpoint which draws the lines clearly, rather than proceeding from the position that we all share the same basic assumptions and that one's interlocutor is drawing dishonest conclusions based on them.